Ignorant Intellectuals, No. 6

RV51-01

© Berean Memorial Church of Irving, Texas, Inc. (1993)

We're continuing in our study of the Revelation on the letter to the church at Philadelphia. This is segment number 23 in Revelation 3:7-13. In the last session, we referred to one of the evidences of the effect of modern progressive education and of the modern viewpoint, in the fact that certain things that used to be characteristic in the way of children's literature have been considerably changed. I referred to a book written by Isaac Watts called Divine Songs. It was a volume which was used in colonial America for the singing sessions that children spent together in their school time. It was one of the three most influential books that existed in the reading of our colonial forefathers – this little book, which has been out of print, but which now, fortunately, has been brought into print again; the volume on Fox's Book of Christian Martyrs; and, John Bunyan's Pilgrim Progress. Those titles seem terribly imposing to consider that as children's literature when you think about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and Dr. Seuss with The Hoop in the Loop, etc. That's a vast contrast when you realize that you're talking about children, and the backbone of their reading and of their orientations to life should come from three such books.

Progressive Education

Well, before we leave progressive education behind us, hopefully forever, I do want to give you a little insight from this book that I think is worth your having. This will give you a little orientation to what we're talking about – of biblical education over the prostituted educational system that we know in this country today. Quoting from Isaac Watts' book of Divine Songs in the introduction, page 2: "The results of parental responsibility in education are readily seen when we view our country's formulating period." What he has said preceding this is that motherhood is a divine calling, and that the keystone of early American education was the mother in the home – obviously, not the mother in the factory, or the mother in the office, or the mother someplace else. This was the mother who woke up in the morning, and she was in the home because she had little children who had to be in the home, and there was no place else that they could be, and thus there was no place else that she should be. In the process of having that day with her children, as per the biblical pattern, she became their first teacher: their first, and foremost, primary teacher.

So, after saying that, he makes this statement concerning the results of that kind of an educational system. A child came to school already well-prepared by what his mother had taught him. "The results of parental responsibility and education are readily seen when we view our country's formulating period. The signers of the Declaration of Independence and members of the Constitutional Convention were giants among men. But yet, they were merely the representatives of a whole nation of people who were able to grasp the intricate problems of self-government. The Federalist Papers were written for the average citizen, and today they are found difficult for our college students. We know, for instance, that Alexander Hamilton was left in complete charge of a thriving business at the age of 12. John Adams entered Harvard at age 14 with a command of Latin and Greek. Benjamin Franklin had ended his schooling, and was fully employed by age 14, and Timothy Dwight could read his Bible at the age of 4. In summary, because we have neglected home teaching and training, children lack the necessary strength and fundamental principles to successfully deal with the world. As parents, we recognize this lack, and make up for it by sheltering and protecting our young for an ever-lengthening time, so that maturity comes later and later as one generation follows the next."

This, of course, is diametrically opposed to the concept that is so evident in progressive education, that the sooner a child gets away from the influence of his parents, the better.

We are quoting here the lady, Elizabeth ... Wells, who compiled and secured these songs. Here is a quotation from page 5 of the introduction: "In continuing my search for early children's books, and the type of schooling the colonists received, I found the sources very slim indeed. This period is skimmed over quickly, and dealt with by modern writers with repulsion. For instance, Monica Kiefer, in her book American Children: Through their Books, peppers her discussion with these opinions. The content of juvenile publications depicts even more clearly the formal, tortured existence of these godly children and 'a pall of dejection encompassed nearly all juvenile books until the days of Alice in Wonderland, whose sheer nonsense and fantastic illustrations broke the spell of gloom.' No period in the history of American juvenile literature is, therefore, so bleak and uninspiring as the first 75 years of the 18th century. ... The children of this era, as a result, grew up in an atmosphere of fear and repression.

"I know that modernists would like to believe, and do believe, the above statements by Kiefer to be true. Most educators, and I dare say, mothers, believe that a child is born neutral or in an angelic state of pure and sweet goodness. Consequently, badness enters into the child's existence through the environment. The result is that all misbehavior, if it is called that at all, is not the fault of the child. The parents, the school, playmates, or poverty are the usual culprits. But the child is not to be considered responsible. Viewing the literature of the colonial period through this philosophy, their criticism is understandable, but not correct. If we but remember the moral courage and physical bravery of George Washington; the chaplains and soldiers of our small American army; the fortitude of the signers of the Declaration of Independence; and, the tremendous amount of hard work, both manual and intellectual, evident during this period, it is inconceivable to believe that these people were fearful, repressed, and gloomy as children.

"Are we to believe that at age 21, these morose children suddenly burst forth as mature adults after such a repressed and tortuous youth? Children were not repressed. They were obedient, and they were happy. It was an age when keeping a diary was encouraged. We have many a legacy left by colonial children. You will read them in vain to find fear or dissatisfaction. They did not whine about their trips to Sunday worship through mud or snow in winter, nor are their complaints to be found of cramped quarters, cranky parents, or mean sisters and brothers. There is not a trace of proliferating juvenile delinquency in court records, and criminal activity of adults during this period is compared to our time (to be) rare indeed. The homes were happy and harmonious, and children were considered as a joyous blessing from the Almighty, and treated as such. It is true that children read lengthy sermons, memorized Scripture, and knew by heart the basic tenets of Christianity, and were present and quiet in church on Sunday. But the results of this type of child-rearing made the children responsible, productive, and happy. The stark contrast to the child of today is shocking in the extreme."

Then we have one more section: "We can see that our adult world is viewed not with challenge or authority as in other days, but with horror and repulsion. So, a sort of childhood utopia is imagined, and we write books to fit our dreams. We are not preparing our young to cope with the real world, because we cannot. All we can do is make childhood one grand and glorious experience, and prolong it as long as possible. In former times, childhood was considered as a rigid training period necessary before one could successfully enter adulthood and responsibility. The literature of that day was opposite to ours. There were many hard truths to be learned. The world had to be studied and classified. Word meanings had to be clear and unsullied, and precision was essential in handling the truth. The wisdom of the past had to be transmitted to the young. This was serious business.

"Upon occasions, writers embellish their subject by using verse or allegory. But the basic purpose was always instructional and preparatory to adulthood. There is instructional literature today, but it is more on the order of how Billy builds a box, or the care and feeding of a garden snake – instructional, yes, but superfluous and trifling. Since the modern world rejects truth and reality, it is easy to understand the slip in the fantasy.

"But we come now to health and science. In this field, we get bogged down in meaningless details. The facts are all important, but the answers as to why is never there. Nothing is ever really explained, because to do so would necessitate a positive faith, and this, we cannot have. We are told to understand the world is impossible and pointless. In fact, those today who make the best marks in school are usually those who can memorize the most facts and statistics, and fill in the most blank spaces on their endless school papers. But understanding of a subject is not expected. Essays and debates are out of favor, because they are impossible when there is no agreed premise upon which to start."

With that little bit of introduction, I thought you might like to hear exactly what children were singing in comparison (often) to what our children are singing today. Here's a song the children used to sing entitled Praise for Creation and Providence:

    "I sing the almighty power of God, that made the mountains rise,
    that spread the flowing seas abroad, and built the lofty skies.
    I sing the wisdom that ordained the sun to rule the day.
    The moon shines full at His command, and all the stars obey.

    I sing the goodness of the Lord that fills the earth with food.
    He formed the creatures with His Word and then pronounced them good.
    Lord, how Thy wonders are displayed wherever I turn mine eyes;
    if I survey the ground I tread, or gaze upon the sky.

    There is not a plant or flower below, but makes Thy glories known,
    and clouds arise and tempests blow by order from Thy throne.
    Creatures as numerous as they be, are subject to Thy care.
    There is not a place where we can flee, but God is present there.

    In heaven, He shines with beams of love, with wrath in hell beneath.
    Tis on His earth I stand or move, and tis His air I breathe.
    His hand is my perpetual guard. He keeps me with His eye.
    Why should I forget the Lord who is forever nigh?"

That song resounds with the concept of the sovereignty of God; His providential care; and, the fact that He is the source of all life. It would be hard to sing that song, and then proceed to teach a class on evolution.

Then here was a song on Praise to God for our Redemption. Now, we're not talking about Berean Christian Academy schools. We are talking about all the schools that ever existed in a city in colonial America, and in the early history of this country. These were just ordinary public schools that children went to. Can you imagine a child in the public school today singing a song like this?

    "Blessed be the wisdom and the power, the justice and the grace,
    that joined in counsel to restore, and save our ruined race.
    Our father ate forbidden fruit, and from His glory fell,
    and we, His children, thus were brought to death, and near to hell.

    Blessed be the Lord that sent His Son to take our flesh and blood.
    He for our lives, gave up His own, to make our peace with God.
    He honored all His Father's laws which we have disobeyed.
    He bore our sins upon the cross, and the full ransom paid.

    Behold Him rising from the grave. Behold Him raised on high.
    He pleads His merits, there to save, transgressors doomed to die.
    There on a glorious throne He reigns, and by His power divine,
    redeems us from the slavish chains of Satan and of sin.

    Thence shall the Lord to judgment come, and with a sovereign voice,
    shall call and break up every tomb, while waking saints rejoice.
    O, may I then with joy appear before the judges face,
     and with the blessed assembly there see His redeeming grace."

Then we have one more example of songs that taught the difference between right or wrong. The very heart of progressive education says that you cannot speak of absolutes of right and wrong. You can only talk about what's right now, but wrong some other time. Here's one that has to do with a thief. It is called The Thief. This would be a good one for members of Congress to have to learn before being elected:

    "Why should I deprive my neighbor of his goods against his will?
    Hands are made for honest labor, not to plunder or to steal.
    Tis foolish self-deceiving by such tricks to hope for gain.
    All that's ever got by thieving turns to sorrow, shame, and pain.

    Have not Eve and Adam taught us their sad profit to compute.
    To what dismal state they brought us when they stole forbidden fruit.
    Oft we see a young beginner practice little pilfering ways,
    till grown up a hardened sinner, when the gallows ends his days.

    Theft will not be always hidden, though we fancy none can spy.
    When we take a thing forbidden, God beholds it with His eye.
    Guard my heart, O God of heaven, lest I covet what's not mine.
    Lest I take what is not given, guard my heart and hands from sin."

That little song just wreaks with the concept of responsibility and consequences for wrongdoing – for evil acts. It says that what you can get away with for a while is going to be a short-lived pleasure.

Then we have one more song. This is in praise for learning how to read. This is a song that most public school children could not sing. It says:

    "The praise of my tongue I offer to the Lord,
    that I was taught and learned so young to read His Holy Word;
    that I am brought to know the danger I was in,
    by nature and by practice too, a wretched slave to sin.

    That I am led to see I can do nothing well,
    and whither shall a sinner flee to save himself from hell.
    Dear Lord, this book of Thine informs me where to go,
    for grace to pardon all my sin, and make me holy too.

    Here I can read and learn how Christ, the Son of God,
    did undertake our great concern; our ransom cost his blood.
    And now He reigns above. He sends His spirit down,
    to show the wonders of His love, and make His gospel known.

    O may that spirit teach and make my heart receive,
    those truths which all thy servants preach, and all Thy saints believe.
    Then shall I praise the Lord in a more cheerful strain,
    that I was taught to read His Word, and have not learned in vain."

This song is entitled Love between Brothers and Sisters:

    "Whatever brawls disturb the street, there should be peace at home,
    where sisters dwell and brothers meet, quarrels should never come.
    Birds in their little nests agree, and tis a shameful sight,
    when children of one family fall out and chide and fight.

    Hard names at first and threatening words, that are but noisy breath,
    may growth to clubs and naked swords to murder and to death.
    The devil tempts one mother's son to rage against another.
    So, wicked Cain was hurried on, till he had killed his brother.

    The wise will let their anger cool, at least before tis night,
    but in the bosom of a fool, it burns till morning light.
    Pardon, O Lord, our childish rage, our little brawls remove,
    that as we grow to riper age, our hearts may all be love."

Ignorant Intellectuals

Today, mankind has degenerated from that kind of a level of orientation to divine viewpoint, to a level of human viewpoint that is the consequences of poison interjected into the stream of human thinking by a variety of influential men. Mankind has degenerated from Adam, who had a mind functioning on divine viewpoint principles, to a mind which is governed by satanic lines. These were gradually interjected over a period of centuries by Satan through strategic men. Modern man, therefore, is governed by voices from the grave, which are carrying the human race into the social horrors of the tribulation period.

We Christians today are surrounded by these mental lies, but we are to be preserved from the sufferings and the fruit of the tribulation as it will be produced from the ideas of these men. Believers without the mental antidote of Bible doctrine, however, are themselves subject to being infected by the lies of Satan. We have looked at some of these lies. One: there is no knowledge beyond the five senses. So, there is nothing that we can know for a certainty about spiritual matters. Kant told us that. Secondly, relative truth only can be secured, and this through dialectical reasoning. Hegel poisoned us with that. Third, man is an animal, and all forms of life evolved from existing matter. Darwin gave us that poison. Communism will provide economic paradise for all. Marx gave us that poison. Then, there was the concept that the Bible was not produced under the control of the divine inspiration of God so that it is an infallible book. Wellhausen gave us that poison. Then finally, progressive education will produce an ideal society of socially quality. It was John Dewey who injected us with that evil.

Sigmund Freud

Now, we go to another voice from the grave that bears a very direct influence on your daily life. His name was Sigmund Freud. This is pronounced by some people as "fraud," with good reason. Sigmund Freud is the Austrian founder of modern psychoanalysis. Whenever people talk about going to their analyst, they're talking about something that Freud put together. Whenever they're talking about trying to get their head screwed on straight, they're talking about something that Freud invented. He's the founder of modern psychoanalysis. This is a method for determining the reasons for emotional malfunctions in people which cause them to act in destructive ways. He was born in Austria, and he lived from 1856 through 1939. To give you an idea of where his thinking comes from, he called himself "a completely godless Jew" and "a hopeless pagan." He was, of course, an atheist. Consequently, He viewed religion as a purely human invention to explain and control forces which were beyond human understanding. From Darwin's theory of evolution, he concluded that after people advance from primitive pre-scientific states, they no longer need the invention of religion and their God. Freud rejected the Bible; he opposed the principles and the rules of restraints which were found in Scripture; and, he saw no purpose for man's existence.

He had a very traumatic experience in applying for medical school. This is what set him on the track of psychoanalysis. He took entrance examinations in order to enter medical school, and he was in a state of considerable anxiety and concern while awaiting the decision relative to his acceptance or rejection. Finally, the day came when he received the good news that he had been accepted for medical school. He promptly, on the spot, collapsed and went to bed for a year. He spent the whole year in bed as the result of that traumatic shock of being accepted to medical school. ... He spent this year in bed, and he got to thinking. He said, "Now, why did I do that? I wanted to go to medical school. I applied. I was anxiously awaiting. The good news came that I'm in, and I had this terrible physical reaction, and I was bedridden for a year." This set him on the line of thought that there must be something else within a human being that controls what he does outwardly. Of course, this is not entirely without truth.

He began to wonder whether he really wanted to go to medical school. He began to wonder whether, down deep inside of him subconsciously, he did not want to go to medical school, and that this was his outward reaction when he received the shock that what he did not really want to do was going to happen to him. The result was that he concluded that there was a powerful, unseen psychic force that affected everything about people; that it expressed itself in detrimental ways externally; and, and that these were important, therefore, determining overt conduct.

Libido

The system of analysis that Freud built was built on one basic premise. That is that within every human being, there is one supreme key controlling factor. Here is the fundamental basis of his poison. That is summed up by the word "libido." The word "libido" refers to sexual pleasure or sexual desire. Of course, this is a very definitive factor in man. One of the things that was put upon the curse of woman, for her part in the fall, was that her desire would be toward her right man. The Hebrew word is "teshuqah." Her "teshuqah" would be toward her right man, which is a variation (another word) for Freud's "libido." Her desire, and the fulfillment of her desire, would only be found in her right man. When she was detached from her right man, she was a disoriented and a floating, unanchored creature in the human race. Her fulfillment came when she was joined to her right man.

This begins to crop up in young people as they begin to hit certain critical stages of their lives. It is very important for young people to know that this is what is happening. It first hits at about age 12. You begin your junior age, and suddenly you begin to notice that girls are different from boys, and that boys are different from girls. Up to now, you've hated them. Suddenly now, you become interested in them. Suddenly, they begin to blossom out in their interest. I had a couple of them in band practice yesterday, and they were sitting together. I noticed that while we were playing, he had his foot on top of her foot, and they were beating time together with the number. Both of these feet were flopping together. Now, it almost distracted me from keeping my place on the score as I saw this living example of "libido" in action here. But this is what suddenly is beginning to develop and express itself.

Remember that the thrust of libido is always toward marriage. That's the reason God put it in there. That's the "teshuqah" drive. You can see that marriage would not be a very bright thing at the age of 12. That strictly known as your child bride. Then you have your upper child bride, because these things go in waves. You hit a high wave at about age 12, and then the thing eases off, and then you get hit again at about age 16. At about 16 or 17, you suddenly begin to think that you're mature. The reason for that is because they don't have much of a body at age 12. But suddenly at age 16, they've developed the bodies, and they make the mistake (and the parents make the mistake) that these developed bodies indicate that they are now mature adult human beings, but they are empty, hollow nothing. If you were to open the mouth of an average 16-year-old, and yell into it, "Hello," you would find it would just completely resound, because it's hollow. There is nothing in there. ... The outside body is a completely deceptive factor. And they need to understand that. If you are 16 or 17, you need to know that you are not a mature person. It has nothing to do with your IQ. It doesn't mean that you're dumb. It doesn't mean that maybe you're not pretty well-educated by then. But it does mean that you lack the perspective of mature thinking. That takes time. You cannot go to school to learn that. You cannot force feed that. It just takes time to develop.

Of course, the incidents of marriage rises precipitously in the 16-to-18 bracket when there are fewer children, and they have no perspective. That's why a 16-, 17-, or 18-year-old will get married to some jerk that looks like Prince Charming at age 16. But she suddenly matures herself, and then she realizes that she married a Frankenstein in her innocence.

Then, when you hit about age 21, the thing hits again. It comes to another high peak, but age 21 now puts you into a position where you have some maturity. You not only have a physically developed body, but you have come along with some education; you've come along with some life experiences; and, you've come along with some development of experience, so now you are in a position of better stability for getting married. You need to be aware of the fact that getting married is one of the most dangerous games in the world today, and that it's a game you want to play by the rules. You at least ought to know what is the motivating factor and thrust of marriage. This is why you would be wise to have sort of an overriding factor in the consultation of your mature parents, even in such a thing as whether your "libido" is driving you in the right direction. The apostle Paul uses another word. He calls this "burning" in Corinthians when he describes this factor. He says when you get to a certain point, there is a strong attachment; the desire for the physical relation; and, all that is drawn to a person, that it is better now to get married than to burn in that, and to permit it to go astray. But it is wise to consult with those who are more mature, even at this point, because you don't know everything.

I look back now, and I think it's kind of odd in a way that there I was, a 23-year-old officer in the United States Marine Corps, and I go to my father and tell him I want to get married, and I wonder if it would be OK. But it's not really all that dumb as it may seem. There is a perspective from maturity which you don't get except by age, and your parents are always well ahead of you.

So, this is the thing that Freud was talking about, and it is, of course, a very legitimate factor. The issue here is that a 12-year-old is a totally different person than a 16-year-old. A 16-year-old looks back at a 12-year-old, and he can't believe that such a creature ever existed. But the trouble is, when you get to be 21, you look back at 16, 17, and 18, and you wonder how any creature like that could even exist on the face of the earth. The perspective is fantastic between those basic three periods.

Now, Freud caught on to that. He sensed, really, a difficult truth about the way God had constructed human beings. But he placed this as the chief governing factor of all human behavior. He said, "This is the unconscious drive of everything a person does, even if that person is not aware that that is happening. Therefore, he said, "What happens, however, is that the libido factor is suppressed by society. Society is squelching it, and stepping on it." Here is where he went far straight from biblical principles; and yet, while walking practically online with biblical concepts.

He came up with three ideas. One is the "id;" the second was the "super ego;" and, the third was the "ego." Someone has said that when you're a freshman in college, you've never heard of these terms, and you don't know anything about them. When you are a sophomore in college, you know all about them because sophomores have reached the pinnacle of human wisdom and knowledge and understanding. When you become a junior in college, you forget about these; and, when you become a senior, you're sorry you ever heard about them. Here's what they're all about:

The Id

The id in man is the primitive driving force of desires which cry for expression: basically libido. Sex and aggression are two factors primarily that are in man that cry out for expression. These drives in themselves may not, as such, be described as wrong, but they are expressed in inappropriate ways because they are brought under the dominating control of the sin nature within man. The id, therefore, is comparable to what the Bible calls "the flesh," in kind of a rough way. The flesh of man is this propensity to evil. Freud recognized that there was a drive in man which he called "basic." He wasn't saying it was wrong, but the concept of id is conveyed to us (as Christians) by the term "flesh." In some rough way, you can even use the term "sin nature," because it was a drive, but it was a drive which was exercised in a way that was unacceptable by biblical standards.

The Super Ego

Then this id is opposed by another thing that he called a super ego. People have an inner restraining force. We would roughly call that the "conscience," and that would be the biblical term. The idea here is that you have built into you certain concepts by your church; by your parents; by the society in which you live; by the school that you attend; and, so on, such that you come up with a set of values, and a set of conduct rules, and so on. That's called the super ego. That's your value – your moral system. It was built in you, and it acts as a restraining influence upon the id. The old, rough, brute-force, tending-to-evil qualities are being restrained by a conscience-like frame of reference built up by these various factors.

The Ego

Then there is the ego, which must be the deciding element that resolves the conflicts between the id and the super ego. This is the conscious self of man – the awareness of these two demands within a person. We would call that the "mind." It is the logical part. It is the determining factor as to which side is going to win in this internal conflict: by logical; rational; objective; reality-oriented decision. We would, of course, see that this is related to the "soul" of man, because the mind is part of the soul. So, the ego deals with what is a responsible action, whereas the id deals with what is irresponsible. The id just wants its own way, and the super ego deals with that irresponsibility by saying, "No, you can't do that."

Conflict, Tension, and Guilt

Now, Freud said that the result of this kind of a factor in human beings, and the building of the super ego, is what causes the trouble. That comes out to one thing in a human being, and that is conflict. He is under tension. He is under constant tension and conflict, because he wants to go in one direction, and he's torn back by social customs and practices in another direction. And the result of all this conflict is the core factor, Freud said, of all human problems, and that is guilt. Obviously, he was not entirely wrong, because the Bible is very clear that guilt is a real problem in the human experience. But this guilt, Freud said, was not real. It was false guilt. It was emotional disturbances which are being created just because of the pressures of that super ego that society has created. When the id is permitted to ignore the super ego, as some people do, they say, "To heck with conscience and the rules. I'm going to do what I want to do – my own thing." That is the old principle of, "I'm going to let it all hang out."

Neuroses

Then the ego experiences guilt feelings, and that results in various nervous disorders. They are called neuroses. Freud said that these guilt feelings are false guilt, resulting from a misguided super ego. Freud said that you've got to redesign your super ego. Your super ego is all fouled up. It's giving you misdirections. It's calling you down for doing things it shouldn't call you down for, because what your id wants to do is what's coming naturally. A few years ago, there was a song entitled Doing What Comes Naturally. That's a little Freudian twist. That's where the idea came from. Therefore, in psychiatry today, when you go to a psychiatrist, what's he doing? He's taking sides with the id as an expression of what is natural, so that you don't have to feel guilty about pursuing erotic pleasures in order to avoid repression.

I remember one time, while talking about this subject, somebody came to me and said, "Listen, you won't believe this." He named a Christian psychiatrist in Dallas that I happened to know. This man had a lady come to him, and she had a problem. Her problem was concerning her own personal sex life and her temptations in that direction. Do you know what advice he gave her? He told her, "What you need to do is to recognize that that is a very normal desire, and to go and find yourself someone, and have a nice, discreet affair." This is where Christian orientation to Freudian psychiatry will take you. The whole concept here is that the psychiatrist says, "I'm with you, id; and, I'm against you, super ego."

"It's not your Fault"

Freud sought to undermine the authority of the super ego, which is often expressing a biblical frame of reference point of view. He sought to undermine this in a person because he said that it creates guilt feelings which shouldn't be there. He tried to make people feel that their wrongdoing was natural. It wasn't really bad. Therefore, it wasn't their fault. I mean, even if it was real wrongdoing, he said that you're reacting to something that has been built into you. It's not your fault. This was the other thing that came out of Freudian psychiatry – that it's not your fault. He viewed man as an animal without any soul and spirit. So, he viewed him as a product of his environment.

Consequences

So, here we have a man who shot the president of the United States. What are you hearing? "What's the talk you're hearing? What is in this man's background? What is it that he experienced that caused him to do such an anti-social thing? What is the problem that he is struggling with?" The problem that he is struggling with is sin. Whose responsibility is it? It is his responsibility. Yet, Freudian psychiatry is designed to remove responsibility from the individual for his actions so that he cannot be blamed for those actions. So, the justification that should be made is that he should not receive the consequences of those actions. How does it express itself today? This is the problem of our liberal courts. The liberal courts (the liberal judges) have built their concepts of judicial decisions on the basis of Freudian viewpoint. You should not be held responsible for what society did to you. The reason you're going around doing these terrible anti-social things is because of what society has done to you. Therefore, it isn't your fault. If society would permit you to express your normal attitudes, you wouldn't be in this conflict.

Permissiveness

So, Freud's view of removing inhibitions from the sex desire, which he considered the determinative factor for mental health, has led to today's attitude of permissiveness. That's why you have the quality of permissiveness. Permissiveness is the direct result of Freudian psychiatry: Let people do their own thing. People are not responsible for what they do. It's the basis today of the sexual revolution against biblical guidelines for the use of sex. Doing your own thing has been exalted to the point of degrading the human personality. However, the capacity for happiness and fulfillment has been eluded in our society by its newfound freedom where they let it all hang out. We do not have the happiest society in the world today. While they're attacking books like Divine Songs by Isaac Watts as creating repressions in children, the truth of the matter is that those kids were happy kids; they were productive kids; they were responsible kids; they had a lot on the ball; their parents could leave them with fantastic responsibilities that we wouldn't dare consider leaving most of our kids with today; they were perfectly happy; and, they were perfectly balanced emotionally. We have more mental instability in hospitals in society today than ever before. Hospital beds are mostly filled with people who have mental instabilities which have expressed themselves in various physical disorders.

So, psychiatry today is faced with the problem now of the consequences of what Freud taught. Many psychiatrists are backing off. We won't go into the details, but there are three or four distinctively different viewpoints, most of which, interestingly enough, are revolving around one concept: That is to make a person feel responsible for what he has done, and to even make a person compensate for what he has done – the principle of restitution. Well, they're right back to a biblical concept. That's the way the Bible is. The Bible says when you've done a person a wrong, you restore what you cost him. You make it right. Psychiatry today is trying to back off from the destructive influence of irresponsibility that Freud taught, and to recognize that there is real guilt.

So, here is the heritage of Freud to the tribulation world which is coming. People under emotional tension from guilt are told that no guilt should exist in them, and yet, there is real guilt. There is real guilt that we have from Adam – our participation in the garden, and there is real guilt for our own moral violations. It does exist, and the Freudian viewpoint is wrong. In this heritage, we have wrongdoing which is blamed on an individual's background, so that others caused his problem. And that's the idea: Others caused his problem. What did we hear about Oswald? We had all this analysis about how his mother had treated him as a boy. If they could have found the details, they would have checked the status of the rate of change of his diapers, and so on, to see how that related to what was affecting him. Everything that was done to him back there – he is not responsible for. Wrongdoing is blamed on one's background.

Discipline Issues

Consequently, parental discipline of children is inhibited as being potentially warping of a child's psyche when you restrain it. There are times when you ought to beat the tar out of a child's psyche, which is medically called his gluteus maximus, which God has provided as the entrance of a great deal of knowledge for the human race at that stage of development. Concerning parental discipline, you have no idea of the kind of weirdos we get in Berean Academy that, especially our lower grade kindergarten area teachers, have to struggle through. These parents are helplessly wringing their hands about what these kids are doing. They are subject to the meanness of this child, and they wonder what they're going to do. And we have to draw the line. We have to tell these parents, "You've got this much time. It is not our business to straighten him out. It is our business to teach him. If you don't get him straightened out, and he doesn't function by this period of time, then we will dismiss him from the school." That is all that we can do. Otherwise, we would get so bogged down in trying to help somebody whose parents have fouled up because they were so caught up with Freudian psychological concepts, and they did not do the one thing that you must break in every child.

The Will

And, of course, Freud, if he's listening, is going to turn over in his grave, because the one thing you have to break in the child is his will. That is the thing you break, and that has to be done within the first couple of years. From then on, he's going to have a chance of surviving on a rational human basis, and become something more than an uncontrollable wild animal. We have inherited trying to correct psychological malfunctions without the control factor of man's human spirit under the direction of Bible doctrine and God the Holy Spirit. Freud said there is no God, and there is no spirit in man. Yet, the Bible says, "That's the thermostat that controls the whole system."

So, you have a child, and at Christmas time you give him a little set of watercolors so he can paint. And you set him up at his table in his little room, and you put his little piece of paper out there. And then he starts doing his finger painting with his watercolor, and his little creative heart begins glowing, and begins expressing, and begins developing. Finally, he finds that top of the table a little restrictive to his creative genius. So, he begins moving down the legs of the table and decorating those. Then he gets another big glob full of finger paint, and he walks across the rug with it, and then up the wall, and then he draws a tree on the wall. Then he starts painting the door, and he gets a nice fistful about ready to smear, and you walk in, and he gets your straight in the face. He considers that the height of his decorative experience. What are you going to do? You must not rebuke him. You must not lay it to him. You must not cause him to feel that he is being restrained in his creative ability, or you will squelch him. Do you want to squelch child? Have you ever seen a squelched child? It's the loveliest thing in the world.

Sex

We have inherited a society which is now oriented to mental attitudes that everything starts and ends with sex. It is no longer just the added spice to life. It's the key thing in life. Just watch your advertising, and you see how all of that is involved. The sex factor is used constantly to sell things because that is the key feature. We have the idea that no restraint is healthy psychologically, and that's intensely promoted in movies, publications, and art.

We have permissiveness which has led to the national crisis of violence: crime rising; and, murder abounding. You don't like something? Do something about it. Feel free. Take the life.

We have indulged the sinful desires of man to the degree that it has disintegrated the sense of responsibility which is used to cement marriages and be the basis of marriages. Why do we have this vast two out of three marriages going into divorce? That's ludicrous. That's insane. That's absolutely ridiculous. It is a direct result, in part, of the Freudian attitude of permissiveness to indulge your id, and not to be restrained, so that it tears apart marriage when individuals do that.

The influence of Freudian permissiveness on youth has produced a generation of runaways who do that to strike out against parental authorities. We have social theorists who confuse a free society with a permissive society, and they don't know the difference. We have children who view discipline as cruel restraint, and obedience as a sometime thing. We have the rejection by society of the biblical view of sin as responsible, deliberate wrongdoing. The Bible says that it is the deliberate indulgence of one's sin nature. It is not a helpless expression. The rapists and the murderers are examined to find out why they were so helpless before these drives, so they can be excused from punishment. We see that what the Bible calls sin, Freudian psychiatry calls sickness or disease, like: homosexuality; drunkenness; exhibitionism; prostitution; and, kleptomaniacs. When the Bible calls something sin, friends, don't ever forget that that means that you can keep from doing it. The Bible never calls something sin if you are helpless in its presence.

Neuroses and Psychoses

We have plain sin with its consequences of real moral guilt as being misclassified as a neurosis or a psychosis. The Bible says that it is sin, and its real moral guilt. Freud says, "No, it's just a neurosis of psychosis. Do you know the difference between a neurotic and a psychotic? A neurotic is a person who builds castles in the air; a psychotic goes and lives in them. That's the difference. A neurotic talks to himself, but a psychotic answers back. He carries on a discussion. We seem to get secretaries who talk to themselves. They do something, and they say, "Oh, Nancy, why are you doing that?" I'm looking around wondering, "Who is Nancy in this office?" She was talking to herself. Well, that doesn't bother me. When she starts answering back to herself, then that is a little problem. A psychotic thinks that two plus two equals five. A neurotic knows that it equals four, but it makes him uncomfortable. These are the wild differences that are trying to delineate what the Bible says is sin and real moral guilt. That's what's bothering you.

Well, the status of modern psychiatry is on the line. They're reaping the fruits of their viewpoints. Enough time has gone by that the chickens are coming home to roost. Next time, we'll look at a few of those chickens.

Dr. John E. Danish, 1977

Back to the Revelation index

Back to the Bible Questions index